This is something I've really been struck by when looking at the infection fatality rate of COVID-19. Despite the enormous number of serosurveys that some called essential, we've gained almost no real knowledge by pinpointing a specific IFRhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1275982748759412736 …
-
-
Except for that one guy who bet on the 0.1 % at the start and can't stand to be wrong.
-
Exactly. It's about ideology, not about science, it's not really even about policy. The science is wrong and must be redone until it gives the answer wanted. Which, sadly, isn't exactly a new strategy in the world of health and business...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The point was to show that it isn’t 3-4%.
-
Not really true. Experts always knew that the IFR would be lower than the CFR, and that it would not be 3-4%. The fact that it is likely 0.5-1% has very little impact on policy compared to the information we already had
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not sure. One vocal, influential side of the debate was clearly pinning everything on "this is just a bad flu, we shouldn't shut down everything". A better IFR (or, more accurately, a smaller confidence interval) killed that argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.